Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Search This Blog

Pages

Sociology of Deviance and Difference

Alex Page and I are coordinating a Unit for Winter School, the Sociology of Deviance and Difference, and we wrote a brief note for the Unit of Study to convey the ethos and importance of such a topic. Here it is:

A
Brief Note From Your Course Coordinators:

We would both
like to formally welcome you to the Winter School version of Sociology of
Deviance and Difference for 2017! In this intensive unit over the next two and half
weeks we – Mathew Toll and Alex Page – will be working with you to unpack the
nature of deviance and difference and ask questions like: what is deviance? Is it socially constructed?
And if so, how and why is it constructed in certain ways? Who gets to set the
rules? Who gets to label someone a deviant? How is deviance and difference
experienced? And, what are the relations of power at play that determine
constructions of normalcy? Why this way and not another? These questions will
inform the discussion of various social fields of practice to see who wins and
who is deemed bad/mad/different and in need of sanction, disciplining, or
exclusion.

From the outset, we want you to understand the
direction this course through three kinds of stories:

Kinds of People Stories: deviance as rooted in the
biological and psychological attributes of people.

Kinds of Society Stories: deviance as
norm-breaking, labelling processes, and the social construction of deviance and
difference.

Kinds of Power Stories: deviance and difference as
an operation of power and struggle over who is considered normal.

Durkheim established a sociological understanding
of deviance, kinds of society stories, and argues that norm-breaking rather
than being a pathological aspect of society serve a set of key functions, not
least norm-making. We always need to think about how the construction of
deviance and difference are integral to a society, because even in a society of
stains there are deviants:

“Imagine
a community of saints in an exemplary and perfect monastery. In it crime as
such will be unknown, but faults that appear venial to the ordinary person will
arouse the same scandal as does normal crime in ordinary consciences. If
therefore that the community has the power to judge and punish, it will term
such acts criminal and deal with them as such. It is for the same reason that
the completely honourable man judges his slightest moral failings with a
severity that the mass of people reserves for acts that are truly criminal. In
former times acts of violence against the person were more frequent than they
are today because respect for individual dignity was weaker. As it has
increased, such crimes have become less frequent, but many acts which offended
against that sentiment have been incorporated into the penal code, which did
not previously include them.”

-
Emile Durkheim (1983, 100), Rules for a
Sociological Method.

Foucault
takes us further and argues that the disciplinary powers that act on people who
are deviant or different are found in many institutions in modern society beyond
formally punitive institutions. He
makes us think about how disciplinary and normalizing power spreads throughout
the social body and impacts everyone: power is in all relations, forming and
reforming people’s bodies and souls:

“The
judges of normality are present everywhere. We are in the society of the
teacher-judge, the doctor-judge, the educator-judge, the ‘social worker’-judge;
it is on them that the universal reign of the normative is based; and each
individual, wherever he may find himself, subjects to it his body, his
gestures, his behaviour, his aptitudes, his achievements. The carceral network,
in its compact or disseminated forms, with its systems of insertion,
distribution, surveillance, observation, has been the greatest support, in
modem society, of the normalizing power.”

– Michel Foucault (1995, 304), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the
Prison

Our
final quote comes from Vaneigem, who pushes us beyond the textbooks and into
the reality of our own worlds:

“People
who talk about revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to
everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is
positive in the refusal of constraints - such people have a corpse in their
mouth.”

- Raoul
Vaneigem (2001, 26), The Revolution of
Everyday Life.

This sentiment is vital for the Sociology of
Deviance and Difference – vital for sociology. Vaneigem demands of us to
connect theoretical tools and frameworks down to the social realities of lived
experience. Not only is this a good use of your sociological imagination, we
strive to do this because it also means you develop the skills to pull apart
complex social phenomena in your own day-to-day lives! We believe is this the
very foundation of a good sociological education. Maintaining norms and
sectioning ‘deviants’ is a key way we ourselves exert power over others and
this course aims to make us conscious of our own use of power.

We would like to acknowledge Prof Karl Maton, Dr Nadine Ehlers, and Fadi Baghdadi for their help in constructing this course. Finally, we wish you the best throughout Winter
School 2017, and are here to assist you in any way we can.

Popular posts from this blog

During a lecture before the Eugenics Society in 1937, British economist John Maynard Keynes stated that “a greater cumulative increment than 1 per cent per annum in the standard of life has seldom proved practicable”. Moreover, Keynes continued, “generally speaking the rate of improvement seems to have been somewhat less then 1 per cent per annum cumulative”. Of course, Keynes was speaking during the great depression, and therefore his remarks may be tainted with a particular pessimism. But they draw into sharp relief the experience of economic growth in post-war Japan: between 1950 and 1973, GDP growth averaged 10%, a rate of sustained growth never before seen .By 1962, the English publication Economist, with poetic flair, dubbed Japan’s recovery an “economic miracle” . This designation caught on and became a general catch phrase for spectacular economic growth. In the case of Japan, a multitude of explanations have arisen for why Japan underwent an ‘economic miracle’. Crucial to el…

Western Marxism has often laid considerable stress upon the ideology of modern capitalist societies. This focus upon ideology stems from the failure of proletarian revolution to have either occurred, or establish socialism within Western Europe. The exact nature and function of ideology became paramount in Marxian explanations of the continued stability of Western capitalism after the Great War and Great Depression. Marxian conceptualizations of symbolic domination (under the notion of ideology) remain in the realm of consciousness and intellectual frameworks. Pierre Bourdieu developed a paradigm for understanding symbolic power and domination through his theory of dispositional practices that breaks with the concept of ideology and it basis in the tradition of ‘Kantian intellectualism’. This theoretical model both deepens and broadens the sociological understanding of symbolic power and domination, through the acknowledgment of non-intellectual and bodily elements in the dynamics of…